GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 May 2019, 02:00

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55228
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 03:42
1
10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

34% (02:01) correct 66% (02:01) wrong based on 365 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?


(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.

(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.

(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.

(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.

(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.

_________________
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Posts: 300
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 03:53
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?


(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.

(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.

(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.

(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.

(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.


IMO A is right.

The author concluded that violence was the result of freakish weather conditions using the above mentioned series of suppositions, without any evidence. Hence A is most debatable option.
_________________
Only those who risk going too far, can possibly find out how far one can go
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Status: In last prep stage
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 155
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.2
Premium Member
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 04:43
1
It is given that that it is probable,but nothing is mentioned about what happened actually.Highlighed the portion that maybe useful to arrive at D.


Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?


(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.

(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.

(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.

(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.

(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.

_________________
Thanks,
Ankit
Target Score:730+

If the post was useful,please send the kudos
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1010
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 07:09
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?


(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.

(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.

(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.

(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.

(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.


Imo D


The the conclusion is based upon consequences of some probable event. So to undermine the this argument we have to show that the probable event did not occur or some other event occurred.
D questions that the there not certainty that such an even might have occurred and thus this choice undermine the contention.
_________________
Please give kudos if you found my answers useful
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Sep 2016
Posts: 22
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GPA: 3.5
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 12:36
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?


(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.

(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.

(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.

(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.

(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.


In my opinion B ,
A says contemporary( present time) evidence ...doesn't make much sense here
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 06 May 2018
Posts: 58
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 13:09
B for me as well. Author is mixing between cause and effect.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 333
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2018, 18:38
Here two incidents are given..
1. Unusual violence in five years...
2. In same five year, weather pattern disturbance.

Conclusion.
1 leads to 2

B correctly address the concern in stimulus as author has not clearly mentioned cause and effect. These two events can be correlated.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
P
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Posts: 309
GMAT 1: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 2: 570 Q43 V27
GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V39
Reviews Badge
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2018, 03:03
IMO D.

The author says that the consumption of the infected grain CAN cause ergotism, but did it really cause and if it did then what proportion of the population was effected-no information is given on these points. Hence, in the absence of the said information, one can only conclude that the consumption of the infected grain MIGHT have been the reason for violence.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Nov 2017
Posts: 2
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2018, 20:42
Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?

(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence".
(D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence".
How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 353
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
Schools: Booth '21 (D)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Reviews Badge
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2018, 08:52
Aditi23 wrote:
Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?

(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence".
(D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence".
How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??


If you see (A) says the assumption should be made on contemporary evidence i.e., evidence from the current period.
(D) on the other hand says the assumption should have been based on the actual occurrence which the author doesn't talk about.

(A) is wrong for that reason.Hope its clear.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Nov 2017
Posts: 2
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2018, 09:55
1
goforgmat wrote:
Aditi23 wrote:
Please help me understand difference b/w options A and D?

(A)Author's assumption is based on "plausible suppositions" rather than "contemporary evidence".
(D)The author assumption makes no distinction between "probable occurrence" and "actual occurrence".
How is "not giving actual occurrence" diff. from "not having actual evidence"??


If you see (A) says the assumption should be made on contemporary evidence i.e., evidence from the current period.
(D) on the other hand says the assumption should have been based on the actual occurrence which the author doesn't talk about.

(A) is wrong for that reason.Hope its clear.


As per google "contemporary" is an adjective. Meaning :
1.living or occurring at the same time.
2. belonging to or occurring in the present.
Example: "the event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
Accordingly, A states "Author's assumption is based on plausible suppositions rather than evidences of past (when the event occured) time." Is my understand for use of "contemporary" incorrect. Please Help.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Sep 2017
Posts: 169
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2018, 19:12
Bunuel wrote:
A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?


(A)It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.

(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.

(C)Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.

(D)The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.

(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.


Hello Bunuel,

How can we eliminate option B.
As per my understanding there is no clear cut relation mentioned for cause and effect.
So, if someone argues on the point, then the conclusion falls apart.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d   [#permalink] 10 Aug 2018, 19:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-d

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron
Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.